Nearly a year later, even after learning that the man who shot Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords had ties neither to the Tea Party nor the GOP, the editors of the New York Times told us that it was

. . . legitimate to hold Republicans and particularly their most virulent supporters in the media responsible for the gale of anger that has produced the vast majority of these threats, setting the nation on edge. Many on the right have exploited the arguments of division, reaping political power by demonizing immigrants, or welfare recipients, or bureaucrats.

When some on the left learned of the death of Andrew Breitbart, they reacted in the manner the Old Gray Lady attributed to virulent Republican supporters with a gale of anger and expressions of hatred, demonizing a man who dared challenge their most cherished shibboleths.

Always the same litany, lefties? Guess they just assume that if someone is conservative, he must fit their narrow view of what a right-winger must be, someone who hates people who differ from the white male norm.

The news of Mr. Breitbart’s death came as a surprise to me when I was informed of it this morning. My prayers go out to Mr. Breitbart’s family as they cope through this very difficult time.

That’s how human beings are supposed to respond to the passing of your ideological adversaries. One wonders at those left-wingers who responded with such bile. It’s as if their entire identities have become wrapped up not just in their political leanings, but in their animus against their opponents.

One anticipates Democrats, following the lead of Mr. Frank, demanding their fellow partisans “differentiate themselves” from such vitriol and awaits the New York Times‘ condemnation of this gale of hatred.

82 Comments

Always the same litany, lefties? Guess they just assume that if someone is conservative, he must fit their narrow view of what a right-winger must be, someone who hates people who differ from the white male norm.

It seems pretty much anyone, not just conservatives, who takes a stance against one or two of the Left’s sacred cows can get similar treatment. One of my favorite examples of this sort of thing was while reading the comments section of some news article in which Christopher Hitchens and his support for the war in Iraq was mentioned, I witnessed a circle jerk of pure ignorance and conclusion jumping, as several people went on and on about what a “fundy neocon” he is. To top it all off, this was just a few weeks after his book God is not Great was published.

I didn’t read too much coverage of this, and I only saw a few tweets here and there (having been sort of ignoring Twitter for a while), but I will say I did see few liberals/liberal organizations make statements that were classy (for lack of a better word that comes to mind at the moment).

Of course, some characters can be counted on to demonstrate horrid behavior. So I can’t say I’m surprised.

Breitbart delighted in the news of Ted Kennedy’s death, where was his respect for the dead?

Not that I care. I’m not one to demand a certain decorum when somebody dies. If you think someone’s an asshole on Tuesday, them dying on Wednesday doesn’t change anything. And I’ll give Breitbart credit for one thing, he seemed to agree with that sentiment. He thought Kennedy was a terrible human being and reveled in his death. I wish we didn’t have to take turns being shocked about people’s reactions when someone on our respective side died. Feigned indignation is the worst kind. Tell me that if Micheal Moore keeled over or if Keith Olbermann were hit by a bus that there wouldn’t be a proportionate amount of similar sentiment from your side. Again – we have Breitbart himself calling Ted Kennedy a ‘pile of excrement’ immediately after his death, so let’s spare the whole series of conservatives-are-more-respectful-than-liberals nonsense.

In answer to your question in the title of this post, Dan, yes, I have differentiated myself from the hatred. In Bruce’s initial post, I called Little Kiwi’s pathetic comment out. But, you sound like you want some lofty gesture from the left machine that we get from the right every time the death of a liberal or a person perceived as being loved more by liberals and the vitriol is spouting by the crazy portion of the conservative spectrum.

It sounds like you’re holding the left to higher standards than the right.

Tell me that if Micheal Moore keeled over or if Keith Olbermann were hit by a bus that there wouldn’t be a proportionate amount of similar sentiment from your side.

What!?!, no Ed Schultz, Rachel Maddow, Joy Behar? Not too curious that Levi has to compare Andrew Breitbart to liars, charlatans and clowns.

I can not speak for others, Levi, but my ghost in the sky religion fiddle faddle causes me to see even those charlatans, liars and clowns as fellow human beings and I would pray, sincerely, for their souls and the peace and comfort of those they left in mourning.

Moral relativists can throw rocks and taunts, because they make the rules.

Cinesnatch, no, I don’t believe the “left machine” needs differentiate themselves from such hateful rhetoric. I’m just making fun of Barney and the New York Times for trying to hold Republicans accountable for the rhetoric of a handful of extreme conservatives.

I included this post in the category, “Liberal Hypocrisy,” for a reason. As the penultimate paragraph indicates, if they held Democrats to the standards they expect of Republicans, they’d be demanding that Democrats differentiate themselves s– or taking them to task for the hateful rhetoric of this (more than a) handful.

What!?!, no Ed Schultz, Rachel Maddow, Joy Behar? Not too curious that Levi has to compare Andrew Breitbart to liars, charlatans and clowns.

I can not speak for others, Levi, but my ghost in the sky religion fiddle faddle causes me to see even those charlatans, liars and clowns as fellow human beings and I would pray, sincerely, for their souls and the peace and comfort of those they left in mourning.

Moral relativists can throw rocks and taunts, because they make the rules.

I’ve been considerably more gracious towards Breitbart than he was towards Kennedy, does that make him more of a moral relativist than me?

(1) Funny the straw men you set up — every person of consequence that I’ve read on the left has treated this death with the utmost respect. Telling that you can’t even name ONE SINGLE person on the left like a Maddow, Olbermann, Stewart, Josh Marshall, Huffington, etc. who has said anything problematic. On the contrary, they have, if anything, pulled their punches about Breitbart. I mean, really, the best you can come up with a few random tweets? You know how many tweets and internet comments I can find from people on the right on a DAILY basis wishing for harm to befall Obama’s family? You just assume that the left will react in as vile a fashion to Breitbart’s death as he did to Ted Kennedy’s death. Well, sorry to disappoint you, but folks on the left have a little more class than ya’ll.

(2) Here are some prominent political commentators who actually DID make absolutely horrific statements of jokes in the last 48 hours: Rush Limbaugh, who called a young woman a whore and a slut just because she dared to disagree with his positions, and a Bush-appointed Federal Judge who forwarded from his judicial email a joke about Obama’s mother screwing a dog. Can you IMAGINE the OUTRAGE about the EVIL LEFT on this site had, say, Rachel Maddow or a liberal judge done the equivalent? Sadly for your false narrative, the leading commentators and intellectuals on the left are a heck of a lot classier than the Limbaughs and the Coulters of this world, so the best you can do is pick up on random tweets from crazy folks.

(3) How about all of the crazies on the right who are claiming that Obama assassinated Breitbart? No mention of them, huh?

(4) In sum: even when we do right, the left can only do wrong in your eyes. I’d say you have a double standard, condemning the left for exactly the same type of comments that Breitbart himself routinely made, except that NO ONE on the left of Breibart’s stature even MADE those kind of vile remarks. That is why you lack credibility, because you just assume we are all huge aholes. Stay classy.

“It is very hard to have sympathy for an evil person like Andrew Breitbart!” (…..) “a vile excuse for a human being”

The world of moral relativism is full of comparative measurement. It is always necessary for moral relativists to have a superlative to resort to when they are frustrated and need to place emphasis.

Hence, in the first quote, Breitbart is “evil” and in the second quote he is “vile” which is an anagram of evil. But moral relativists get so frustrated that they will resort to “really evil” or “truly evil” or “profoundly evil.”

The point is that in the Judeo-Christian ethic, the line between “good” and “evil” is thin and nearly transparent. We cross that line regularly. But, when we inform ourselves, we can recognize evil and resort to the good. Doing so, means we are learned and wisened and therefore informed not to do that particular evil again. But, perhaps we do. So we take stock of our misdeed, we repent, we ask forgiveness, we try, try again. Some of us suck at avoiding certain evils. Others of us really try to walk on the side of good.

But moral relativists, by necessity, hate the concept of being labeled “evil” in any manner. So they have invented this mile wide grey area between good and evil where they can litigate their evil actions and shift the blame and demand mercy.

These sloppy moral relativists brand Breitbart as “evil” and “vile” or whatever final verdict they care to smear him with, because it camouflages their own misgivings about their understanding of true morality.

I would ask these folks to identify one “evil” or “vile” thing that Breitbart ever did. I ask this in the name of moral relativity. Because that is how the sobriquet is being applied.

If you are a moral person, you have no problem having sympathy for an “evil” person. You can focus on the human being and set aside the evil in his passing. You do not have to justify the “evil” and you can rejoice in its demise, if the death of the person brings an actual end to the evil.

Moral relativists, I have found, can not grasp this simple concept: the man and the acts of the man are separate issues.

That is why I challenge anyone to come forward and explain a “vile” or “evil” act committed by Breitbart. And, I insist, we play it by the moral relativist’s rules where the division between “good” and “evil” is a mile wide and open to all manner of wiggle, jiggle and finagle,

Here is the way I look at it. There are going to be people out there who do not surprise me in the least when they go after someone who has just died. And I’m not talking about criticism of career or personal chioces – Breitbarts Sherrod video, Whitney Houstons drug and alcohol abuse, Davey jones played a horrible tambourine and wasn’t a real musician…. yes, I did run into one of those. I’m talking about those who do the “good riddance to evil scum” or whatever. That’s always going to be out there. Hell, even when Queen Liz II, who is I’m convinced clinging on to life for dear life as long as she can to keep idiot Prince Charles from taking the thrown, finally kicks the bucket, there will no doubt a few who will write some horrible things about her, probably for dying and letting the idiot Prince Charles ascend to the thrown.

That kind of thing doesn’t surprise me.

What does is when you have a foe of the recently deceased handle the unfortunate event of someones death with class. Case in point – Andrew Sullivan on Breitbart. He could do some of the same things that some of the other media talking keyboard have been doing, but nope. He’s been reflecting on Breitbart in fine form, with reflections and interesting commentary that reminds me of why I still go to his corner of the web. As long as he’s not writing about his man-crush, he’s still a good writer.

For his handling of Breitbarts passing, I tip my hat to Sullivan for that.

You know, what people who have been raised with decent standards of moral behavior have and people like Levi don’t is the understanding that you can’t justify your own bad behavior by thebad behavior of others.

Also, atheists like Levi constantly proclaim that they “don’t need God to be good.” Consider Levi’s comments, both in the wake of Breitbart’s death and generally, and ask how that theory is working out.

Tell me that if Micheal [sic] Moore keeled over or if Keith Olbermann were hit by a bus that there wouldn’t be a proportionate amount of similar sentiment from your side.

Sure Levi, no problem at all.

If Michael Moore keeled over or if Keith Olbermann were hit by a bus, no, there wouldn’t be a proportionate amount of similar sentiment from conservatives. Definitely not from known opinion leaders like the bloggers, reporters, etc. who have been caught hating on Breitbart.

That’s right, ILC. When Michael Moore dies, I will probably make some private comments to close friends that would be completely inappropriate in public; but I won’t go on a deranged tear on the interwebs. (But Michael Moore is a hypocritical, anti-American, piece-of-crap.)

Dan, you still don’t get it. You seem to believe that something that Rush Limbaugh, a leader of the GOP (and if you claim he is not, then why do all of the GOP leaders, if they ever dare to mildly criticize him, immediately have to grovel for his forgiveness?) says is the equivalent of something a random jack-hole on twitter says. It is not. The day the NYTimes publishes an editorial demanding that Republicans spend day after day apologizing for the never-ending stream of incredibly hateful, racist, and outright evil invective labeled against the Obama family by random internet and twitter commentators is the day I will agree with you and say, yeah, that is utterly ridiculous. It would, after all, be a full-time job.

But that is not what is happening. The crazies on both sides will always be, well, crazy. The difference is, the LEADERS of the right, the biggest media stars, the people whose endorsements carry the most weight, who are featured speakers at CPAC, are the ones who put out all kinds of nasty, personal invective, questioning Obama’s patriotism, calling him a closet Muslim who is not born in America, who wants to destroy this country, who is the product of woman-dog sex, who pals around with terrorists (that was your VP candidate, the last one). Or who call civilans who testify before congress whore and sluts.

Again, I’ve given two examples from just the past two DAYS, one from a Federal judge, one from your party’s biggest media star. To treat comments from those folks as the same as some random twitter comments would be absolutely ridiculous, but that is exactly what you seem to be calling for. I mean, come on, dude, get real!

Also, what say you to those who would say that it is fair to treat Breitbart’s death with the exact same amount of respect that he treated the death of a liberal US Senator? The thing is, NO ONE of ANY consequence on the left has even done this. I mean, the guy destroyed Shirley Sherrod’s life, and she treated him (as you note) with respect. What exactly did Ted Kennedy ever do to Breitbart or his family? And by the way, I am one happens to think, despite my disagreements with his methodology and brand of rhetoric, that Breitbart’s death is a very sad event. that does not mean that he is, of course, post-humously immune from criticizm. But to those on twitter or anywhere else who are dancing on his grave (just as he danced on Ted Kennedy’s), that is outright wrong. It’s also wrong to suggest, by the way, that Obama had him assassinated, as many (crazy, extreme, inconsequential) folks on the right are not doing.

If you are looking for hypocrisy by the left, you really need to look elsewhere. You are losing this argument, and badly. The fact is, the only double standard here is that all of the leading lights on the left have been a LOT more respectful to Breitbart in death than he EVER would have been to them had the situations been reversed. To claim otherwise is beyong disingenous, it’s intellectually dishonest and belied by, well, fact.

When woman who is attending a $45,000 a year law school wants someone else to pay for her birth control, the proper word isn’t “slut” it’s “whore.”

This is a very general statement, VTK.

Just a note, not all women who take birth control are sexually active, as it’s often used for non-sexual purposes like controlling one’s cycle, menstrual cramps, acne, or anything severe like ovarian cysts and several other medical-grade conditions brought on by hormonal imbalance.

So, if a hypothetical woman is attending a $45,000 a year law school and needs birth control, are we to then assume she’s not on scholarship and she doesn’t have a hormonal imbalance? Just checking, because I want to make sure I make all the appropriate assumptions when I pass judgment on someone and call them a whore.

Sure, Cinesnatch, let’s assume the outlier is true and the logical conclusion is false, shall we?

Also, the woman isn’t just a random student, she’s a self-proclaimed “Reproductive Rights Advocate.” Which tends to support the “not-an-outlier” hypothesis.

And the thrust of her testimony was the use of contraceptives to prevent pregnancy, not for use in dealing with rare medical conditions, also supports the “not an outlier” hypothesis.

And since so many leftists are proclaiming that the GOP “wants to stop women from enjoying sex,” I think that pretty much makes the “not an outlier” hypothesis a slam-dunk. Unless you think Levi is also presuming the woman is a whore.

I don’t listen to Limbaugh, nor do I watch network news, so I have no idea who this Fluke person is. In the quote of yours I used in Post #23, I addressed that you used an absolute. In the future, you just might want to be more careful. Or not. Up to you.

Sandra Fluke is the Development Editor of the Journal of Gender and the Law, and served as the President of Law Students for Reproductive Justice, and the Vice President of the Women’s Legal Alliance. In her first year, she also co-founded a campus committee addressing human trafficking. Cornell University awarded her a B. S. in Policy Analysis & Management, as well as Feminist, Gender, & Sexuality Studies in 2003.

In fact, it’s hard even to use the word “issues” in connection with Andrew Breitbart. He may have used the words “left” and “right,” but it’s hard to imagine what he ever meant by those words. He waged a culture war minus the “culture,” as a pure struggle between personalities. Hence his intense focus on President Obama: only by hating a particular political man could Breitbart bring any order to his fundamentally apolitical emotions.

Because President Obama was black, and because Breitbart believed in using every and any weapon at hand, Breitbart’s politics did inevitably become racially coded. Breitbart’s memory will always be linked to his defamation of Shirley Sherrod and his attempt to make a national scandal out of back payments to black farmers: the story he always called “Pigford” with self-conscious resonance.

And this is where it becomes difficult to honor the Roman injunction to speak no ill of the dead. It’s difficult for me to assess Breitbart’s impact upon American media and American politics as anything other than poisonous. When one of the leading media figures of the day achieves his success by his giddy disdain for truth and fairness—when one of our leading political figures offers to his admirers a politics inflamed by rage and devoid of ideas—how to withhold a profoundly negative judgment on his life and career?

Seriously, how stupid are you people? First, the Blunt Amendment threatened a HECK of a lot more than contraception. Second, oral contraception (which is extremely expensive, actually) is prescribed for a variety of medical needs besides birth control. Third, you are so cowardly, I’d love for you to call her a whore and a slut to her face and see what happens. Yeah, you don’t come close to having the balls. Fourth, and most importantly — just because someone uses any form of contraceptives doesn’t mean — gasp — that they sleep around. I realize that y’all think that contraceptives are evil and we should just keep populating the earth until it runs out of resources, but most intelligenct people understand that humanity is only sustainable if mosst people limit themselves to between 0 and 3 children, which, even if you are in a MONOGAMOUS relationship, is incredibly unlikely without contraceptives. Or, would you feel better discouraging contraceptive use and just having people have unwanted kids or, better yet in your eyes, aborting the babies? I didn’t think so. Paying for contraceptions prevents the spread of STD’s, lowers unwanted pregnancies, lowers abortion rates, and helps lower poverty in the long run. But y’all are too busy calling people — who for all you know are in a monogomous sexual relationship — whores and sluts to educate yourself on basic science and social policy. The ignorance is frightening and staggering. But then again, why I am surprised by a party which has Rick Santorum as a finalist for the Presidential nomination? OR who casts stones about people they know nothing about when two of your party leaders (Limbaugh and Gingrich) have about six divorces and no doubt innumeral sexual affairs between them? THESE are the people who are calling out OTHER people on moral grounds? A better question: why do I waste my time pointing out the obvious to people who’d rather be willfully blind to their own party’s nastiness, virtriol, and ultimately, descent into political irrelevance?

Well, Sonic, you and I must use a different filing system because my Category of “Obnoxious Things Liberals Said About Andrew Breitbart When He Dies” accommodates them both.

Yes, it does. My file system include the category “Well written critiques and observations, even if I don’t agree with all of it”, and also has one for “Stupid, idiotic tweets”.

PS. I must admit, I’m biased on the “tweets” thing, because I think tweeting is one of the more useless and foolish bits of all the social media out there. Don’t get me wrong, I’m all for the fun short pity comment, but tweeting mostly seems to get people into trouble. Judging from the amount of trouble and damage an errant, poorly thought out tweet can do, why politicians think its a good thing is beyond me.

Fourth, and most importantly — just because someone uses any form of contraceptives doesn’t mean — gasp — that they sleep around.

Comment by JeffZ — March 2, 2012 @ 1:03 pm – March 2, 2012

Actually, in the case of this particular liberal, what Rush pointed out yesterday is that the amount she claimed she spent on contraception annually was sufficient to buy five condoms a day for 365 days a year.

And what Rush also asked, point-blank: why is SHE the only one supposedly paying for this? Why don’t the liberal men who are screwing her want to pay their fair share and be responsible?

And this was funny:

Paying for contraceptions prevents the spread of STD’s, lowers unwanted pregnancies, lowers abortion rates, and helps lower poverty in the long run.

Some people wrongly believe that if they take birth control pills, they are protecting themselves not only from getting pregnant but also from infection with HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases (STDs). Birth control pills or other types of birth control, such as intrauterine devices (IUDs), Norplant, or tubal ligation will NOT protect you from HIV and other STDs.

So the lie that gay and lesbian liberals like JeffZ are pushing that birth control pills and abortions prevent STDs is totally unscientific and based on their own insane ideological beliefs.

It explains so much about the HIV rate in the gay and lesbian community that JeffZ doesn’t even know that the vast majority of contraceptive methods do not do a damn thing to stop STDs.

Meanwhile, I would simply point out this: the Obama supporters like JeffZ are claiming that “98% of women are already using contraception” — yet the rate of unwanted pregnancy, abortion, poverty, and in particular STDs continues to stay the same or go up.

So Jeff, if “98% of women are already using contraception”, why haven’t the rates of all of these things cratered? Why have they stayed steady, or, in the case of poverty, skyrocketed?

This is about three things:

1) Using governmental power to punish people for religious beliefs and to force them to pay for abortions

2) Laundering Federal and state taxpayer money to the Obama Party through abortion clinics

3) Buying votes by allowing the irresponsible and lazy Obama Party base like Sandra Flake and JeffZ to avoid paying their bills and taking responsibility for their actions

First, not that it matters, but while I am (obviously) a liberal, I’m not gay, and I am in a committed relationship (if you are curious how I heard about this site, it is through college affiliation). I am confident that my record when it comes to personal morality is a heck of a lot better than almost anyone on the right who would purport to tell me how I should live my life.

I’ll just address one thing: the difference between abstinence and contraception is that the first (as numerous studies have concluded) doesn’t work at all, and the second works partially. Or do you REALLY need me to point out the thousands of fierce conservative / religious advocates of abstinence education who themselves (or their dependants) engaged in all manner of sexual misbehavior? People of all stripes want to have sex. Saying abstinence will solve any sort of problems related to sexual activity is sort of like saying, hey, the solution to our obesity problem in the US is easy — just eat less! There, problem solved, right?

Abstinence doesn’t prevent pregnancy? So, you can get pregnant without having sex? I mean, I know Georgetown is a Catholic University, but I think even there, the possibility of an immaculate conception is remote.

And, yeah. A whole lot of the obesity problem could be solved by reduced caloric consumption. But I guess if someone thinks one can become pregnant without having sex, one must be similarly open to the notion that one can get fat without eating.

And, yeah. A whole lot of the obesity problem could be solved by reduced caloric consumption. But I guess if someone thinks one can become pregnant without having sex, one must be similarly open to the notion that one can get fat without eating.

Comment by V the K — March 2, 2012 @ 2:21 pm – March 2, 2012

It’s more on the order of being stuck in perpetual childhood, V.

JeffZ and his ilk do not believe that they should ever have to grow up and make adult choices. They want to continue in the self-indulgent, spoiled mentality of their childhood, where Mommie and Daddy filled their every need and they got what they wanted by temper tantrums.

The problem here is simple. Sandra Flake wants to buy fancy dresses, shoes, and handbags instead of having to pay her bills. Her solution is to demand that Mommie and Daddy pay her bills, and then she shrieks and screams that if they don’t do it, they don’t love her.

She and JeffZ have just translated Mommie and Daddy to the government. They want the government to pay their bills so they can buy things that are more important to them, and if you don’t agree, you hate women and want them all to die.

Levi, JeffZ, and Sandra Flake are emotional, mental, and social cripples. They are incapable of making hard choices or value-based decisions. They refuse to believe that they might actually — horrors! — have to go without sex, live in a less-fancy space, buy cheaper food, or not have their new BMW or Jimmy Choos. They are entitled to these things because they want them, and anyone who doesn’t give them these things or agree that they should get them is evil.

NDT, the Obamacrats depend on that. The depend on people who don’t care that the country is nigh on bankrupt, entitlements are unsustainable, millions of jobs have been destroyed, gas is headed toward $5 a gallon, our enemies are on the move and arming up… as long as the Government promises them free sexual aids, they’ll happily march to the voting booth for him.

You seem to believe that something that Rush Limbaugh, a leader of the GOP (and if you claim he is not, then why do all of the GOP leaders, if they ever dare to mildly criticize him, immediately have to grovel for his forgiveness?) says is the equivalent of something a random jack-hole on twitter says.

This is a new talking point I’m seeing from leftists. I’ve been engaged in a Facebook back-and-forth with a frothing leftist friend. When I brought up leftist hosts use of the terms “slut,” “twat” and wanting a whole political party “fucking dead,” the response was that it didn’t matter. It matters for Rush because he is the “de-facto leader of the Republican party.”

So my response was “de-facto” according to whom. I also inquired as to why they would even care what the leader of a party they don’t belong to would say.

We weren’t even debating the contraception issue – my point was that both the left and the right like to dial up the rhetoric for their TV and radio audiences. It’s entertainment. Big deal what some blowhard pundit says on TV.

What’s funnier is that as much as they hate Limbaugh, he’s getting tons of publicity because they keep making this a story – so they’re actually helping him.

You seem to believe that something that Rush Limbaugh, a leader of the GOP (and if you claim he is not, then why do all of the GOP leaders, if they ever dare to mildly criticize him, immediately have to grovel for his forgiveness?) says is the equivalent of something a random jack-hole on twitter says.

After confronting a frothing leftist friend’s objection with several instances of leftist hosts using terms like “slut,” “twat,” and an anti-bullying hero wanting a whole political party “fucking dead” he proceeded to tell me that what made if differrent was that Rush Limbaugh is the “de-facto leader of the Republican party.”

We weren’t even discussing contraception. I was simply trying to figure out why he was so upset over a talk show host making an outrageous statement.

In fact, I pointed out how he and the rest of the media was actually helping Limbaugh by getting worked up in to a fury. Rush is getting a lot of publicity out of this that he wouldn’t have if everyone just ignored him.

I know this thread has gone off into contraception-land, but I just had to say FTR, this line of sonicfrog’s made me laugh:

There is no respect shown by some of the commenters

It’s funny because I have a similar opinion but from a different viewpoint; so that it ends up as one of those “A man goes on a journey / A stranger comes to town” perspective-shifting things. Here it is. From where I sit, certain commentors on the GP blog are nearly-full-time bullsh*tters, who are then unhappy because they expect FAR more respect than their (poor) comments earn for them or will ever get them.

All these years, I’ve wondered what a “Hoya” was. Now, I know it means “a slut who want you to pay for her birth control.”

LOL 🙂 Well, I think it’s telling that (1) she doesn’t turn to cheaper methods, and (2) doesn’t expect her boyfriends to pay. Actually, when I first saw her I thought “Wait a tick – lesbians need contraception?”

LOL Well, I think it’s telling that (1) she doesn’t turn to cheaper methods, and (2) doesn’t expect her boyfriends to pay.

Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 2, 2012 @ 3:38 pm – March 2, 2012

There’s the big one, ILC.

Flake, the 1-percenter Georgetown Law student, doesn’t want to pay.

Her liberal 1-percenter DC boyfriends don’t want to pay.

They want the working-class black family with three kids down the street that are scraping to afford their home and education for their children to pay instead.

If Obama Party rich white liberals like JeffZ, Sandra Flake, Levi, and others care so much about “the poor”, why is the entire point of their rhetoric to ensure that “the poor” have to pay higher taxes so that rich white liberals don’t have to pay their bills?

That’s what I want Levi and JeffZ to answer. They’re both affluent white males; why do they have to increase taxes on poor black families so that they don’t have to pay for contraception for their many partners?

I do not approve of Andrew Breitbart’s comments on Ted Kennedy’s death, but I don’t necessarily disagree with them. Breitbart was a much better man than Ted Kennedy was, and I haven’t seen any instances in which what Breitbart said about Kennedy came close to the vile things frequently said about Breitbart. I reserve celebrating death for truly evil people like dictators, murderers, and terrorists (such as Osama bin Laden and Kim Jong Il), but Ted Kennedy was about on the line between evil and not evil (in my opinion). And I didn’t see any instances in which Breitbart actually celebrated Kennedy’s death, he merely spoke ill of him.

I think Rush’s use of the word is defensible on the basis of logic and reason. But logic and reason are unwelcome in our political culture, which is obsessed with drama and narrative. So, you are correct, sir, that Rush’s use of the word was unhelpful and played into the hands of the left; who are desperate to whip up a distraction from Obama’s disastrous energy policy. (Chevy Volt production went on hiatus today, BTW.)

It bears mentioning, however, that less than a year ago, feminists were embracing and promoting the use of the word ‘slut.’

That is true, and I considered that while making my comment. The only reason I said he was on the line between evil and not evil was that he apparently didn’t intend to kill her, but he did fail to do what any half-decent person would have, which I guess is just as bad. So, he was at the very least on the line, but is probably beyond it (on the evil side).

That should settle the matter. For the record, I am not the kind of person that casts everyone in a positive light when they die. Michael Moore is a (something that I will refrain from saying here given it will be incivil), and he will be no different when he dies (which, judging by his obesity, may not be too far away). I won’t celebrate his death, though. And I will criticize anyone who does.

I am confident that my record when it comes to personal morality is a heck of a lot better than almost anyone on the right who would purport to tell me how I should live my life.

Stop the presses: !!!!!!!!! We have a whole new moral relativism game of duck and dodge …….. personal morality ……. which is judged and measured by ……… the person who invents his own personal morality.

Circle: meet argument.

Well, JeffZ, I am confident that my record when it come to personal morality is a heck of a lot better than almost anyone on the left who would purport to tell me how I should live my life, what is politically correct, what I may eat, how I light my home, whose recreation I must pay for, and on and on and on.

I am confidant that God’s record with personal morality outweighs everyone on this thread. So, yeah, if you’re going to rationalize Breitbart’s reaction to Ted Kennedy’s death, you’re a moral relativist.